The Vierendeel Truss Past and Present of An Innovative Typology

v.15 n.
1 2019
DOI: 10.4013/arq.2019.151.11
THE VIERENDEEL TRUSS: PAST AND PRESENT OF AN

INNOVATIVE TYPOLOGY
A VIGA VIERENDEEL: PASSADO E PRESENTE DE UMA

TIPOLOGIA INOVADORA
Josep Maria Pons-Poblet 1
Abstract
In the late 19th century, Belgian engineer Jules Arthur Vierendeel registered the patent for a
new type of beam. This would be later on better known as the Vierendeel truss. It is
characterized by the frame’s lack of diagonal members, something which would appear to
contradict conditions of steadiness and balance, along with its notable deformation and
difficult calculation, caused technicians in his time to be skeptical about its applicability.
Nevertheless, its application surged in popularity during the 20th century, being used both in
civil engineering and architecture. What are the advantages of the Vierendeel truss as
compared to other types, such as diagonal trusses? In this article, the Vierendeel typology
will be introduced along with its main features, its calculation as well as its implementation in
civil engineering and architectural works.
Keywords: Vierendeel, Pratt, statistically indeterminate structures.
Resumo
No final do século XIX, o engenheiro belga Jules Arthur Vierendeel registou a patente de
um novo tipo de viga. Isto seria mais tarde mais conhecido como a armação de Vierendeel.
Caracteriza-se pela falta de elementos diagonais do quadro, algo que pareceria contradizer
as condições de estabilidade e equilíbrio, juntamente com a sua notável deformação e difícil
cálculo, fez com que os técnicos de sua época fossem céticos quanto à sua aplicabilidade.
No entanto, sua aplicação cresceu em popularidade durante o século XX, sendo utilizada
tanto na engenharia civil quanto na arquitetura. Quais são as vantagens da treliça de
Vierendeel em relação a outros tipos, como as treliças diagonais? Neste artigo, a tipologia
Vierendeel será introduzida juntamente com suas principais características, seu cálculo e
sua implementação em obras de engenharia civil e arquitetura.
Palavras-chave: Vierendeel, Pratt, estruturas estatiscamente indeterminadas.
1
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, josep.maria.pons@upc.edu
Josep Maria Pons-Poblet
THE VIERENDEEL TRUSS

In May 1897 a Belgian engineer registered the patent for a lattice truss without
diagonal lines but rather organized using only vertical and horizontal
members. This structure would end up being known as the Vierendeel truss,
honoring this Belgian engineer: Jules Arthur Vierendeel (1852–1940).
Figure 1: Outline of the Vierendeel type.
This new type of truss constituted a true novelty when compared to existing
beam types. Among several others, the most prominent were the Pratt i ,
Howe ii, and Warren iii beams, each one with specific features of their own.
Figure 2: Outline of the Pratt typology.
Figure 3: Outline of the Warren and Howe typologies.
As can be noted, the Vierendeel type dispensed with diagonal lines, which,
working with traction (Pratt), compression (Howe), compression-traction
(Warren) doubled as bracing elements of the frame. This was at the origin of
an important debate around the Vierendeel truss’s suitability as there were
concerns about its structural safety, and it showed greater deformation when
compared to the other models. In addition to these items of discussion, the
subject of its calculation came up, which couldn’t be tackled using the classic
procedures of statics.
ArquiteturaRevista, v.15, n.1, jan/jun, 2019 194

A SIDE NOTE: ISOSTATIC STRUCTURE VERSUS

HYPERSTATIC STRUCTURE
Isostatic structures
Statistically determinate structures. They are defined by having three
unknowns to be solved.
Figure 4: Outline of an isostatic beam with tree unknowns.
Applying the Rouché-Frobenius (Rouché-Capelli) theorem, we consequently

need three independent equations to solve it. These relations are determined
by equations of statics, which were perfectly well-known in Vierendeel’s day.
� 𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥 = 0, � 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 = 0, � 𝑀𝑀𝑧𝑧 = 0
Hyperstatic structures
Statistically indeterminate structures. As opposed to the ones described
above, hyperstatic structures present more unknowns than equations. The
system, therefore, is compatible but indeterminate. Therein lies the main
problem. How are unknowns to be determined if the number of equations is
not enough?
Figure 5: Outline of a beam with four unknowns
The expert (whether an architect or an engineer) would have to face a difficult

situation. To devise isostatic structures — easy to solve but at the cost of
some values, such as the section of the material to be used — or otherwise
hyperstatic structures, more desirable from the point of view of design and
economy but harder to calculate. In truth, resorting to the classic formulations
by Mohr (1835-1918) and Castigliano (1847–1884), among others, was a
possibility, but it wouldn’t prevent it from being a really tedious problem.

An initial examination of the Vierendeel truss allows us to note it is externally

isostatic, with its unknowns to be determined being the one corresponding to
the pin joint A (Ax and Ay), and its counterpart related to movable joint B (By).
Three easily solvable unknowns by using equations of statics.
Figure 6: Example of a Vierendeel beam with loads.
Figure 7: System of resolutive equations of the previous isostatic system.
The problem lies with the determination of stresses in each of its elements,
the preliminary step prior to the dimensioning of the structure. This case stops
being statically solvable and becomes a hyperstatic problem instead
(internally).
As stated previously, a study of the Vierendeel type using the aforementioned

hyperstatic methods (Mohr, Castigliano), along with others, such as the
integration of the elastics equation, would initiate a process that could turn out
to be extremely tedious. As a matter of fact, in general, new formulations
should be sought in order to endow the technician with the same accuracy
while facilitating the resolution of structures, especially hyperstatic ones. Let’s
have a closer look at this interesting part of structures calculation.

Figure 8: Vierendeel truss. Madrid. (Source:

https://cinesdemadrid.blogspot.com/2010_07_11_archive.html )
A first study would take us back in time into 1878, when the calculation of
structures has taken a dramatic turn thanks to the essays presented by Benoit
Émile Clapeyron (1799–1864) at the Académie des Sciences.
The Frenchman, by means of his Theorem of the three moments, introduced

a relatively agile solution for the hyperstatic truss. This new contribution, along
with a number of existing solutions, opened a new scenario in the fields of
strength of materials and structures theory. In all fairness, the result obtained
by Clapeyron is occasionally attributed to Henri Bertot (according to Jacques
Heyman), since he penned in 1855 a similar text in the same journal.
Nevertheless, a majority of experts attribute the result to Clapeyron. There is
no doubt about the enormous importance of the method. It became a staple
in the bibliography of university lecturers and professional technicians, as
much in Europe as in America at a later point. Starting from this important
contribution, the calculation of hyperstatic structures would become greatly
simplified.
A closer examination of the Vierendeel truss reveals how it possesses a

significant degree of hyperstaticity with parametric states in relation to its
degrees of freedom. This further complicated the operative, causing that, even
when using Clapeyron’s formulation, its solution remained cumbersome.
Theory of Structures required, once again, to obtain more agile formulations

than the existing ones because the increased number of members of the
frames, along with their high hyperstaticity, led to a system of resolutive
equations, which implied long calculations in order to obtain the desired result.
New methods were needed in order to simplify calculations without sacrificing
accuracy or safety. In spite of the formulation in some highly useful and
rigorous methods (Bendixen-Wilson, 1914; Maney, 1915), only after the early
1930s, a new approach would be discovered in the calculation of structures.
This is due to the apparition of an iterative resolution method, which would
come to be known as the Cross Method, named after its originator Hardy
Cross (1885–1959). His publication (1930) in American Society of Civil
Engineers of an article bearing the title Analysis of continuous frames by

distributing fixed-end moments was a major milestone in the calculation of

structures.
Figure 9: American Society of Civil Engineers. (Source: Proceedings of the American

Society of Civil Engineers 1930,
https://archives.library.illinois.edu/erec/University%20Archives/1105037/Cross_Analysis_of
_Continuous_Frames_opt.pdf )
Hardy Cross himself, in his Synopsis, clearly introduces the aim of his method:
The purpose of this paper is to explain briefly a method which

has been found useful in analyzing frames which are statistically
indeterminate. The essential idea which the writer wishes to
present involves no mathematical relations, except the simplest
arithmetic.
The reactions in beams, bents, and arches which are immovably

fixed at their ends have been extensively discussed. They can
be found comparatively readily by methods which are more or
less standard (Cross, 1930).
Once the method had been formulated, it found widespread acceptance both
in scholar and technical works, as well as in calculation reports, as the
literature on the subject illustrates (Eaton, 2006). Most existing methods were
displaced by this one, it being much more nimble, faster, and providing the
same security in the end result.
VIERENDEEL TRUSS CALCULATION

As it has been previously said, criticism by detractors of the Vierendeel truss
originally focused on its calculation. Compared to other typologies, it actually
appeared to be a lot more complicated. We were referring to the Pratt truss
(or any of the others), which is also widely used in civil engineering. It is
commonly accepted in the case of these typologies to calculate (on a first

instance) considering them as a hinge joint, which proves, consequently, that

the equations of statics are perfectly applicable in order to obtain the results
very swiftly. These can be subsequently used to dimension the beam or to
verify its various components.
Figure 10: Solution of a Pratt truss.
This simplification can’t be applied to the Vierendeel truss since we begin with
the premise of a rigid joint and, therefore, the existence of a bending moment
M, as well as its corresponding axial force N and shear force T which cannot
be taken out of the calculation. This is a consequence of the rigid joint, which
ensures the overall stability, and is affected by the lack of diagonal elements,
diagonals being precisely what makes calculations notably more difficult. The
introduction of the Cross method simplified the problem to a great extent.
Figure 11: Efforts considered in a generic section of a Vierendeel truss.
TWO NEW PROBLEMS... THE BENDING MOMENT

AND DEFORMATION
Once the problem of calculation of the Vierendeel typology has been partially
solved thanks to the Cross method, two more problems of utmost importance
ensue: the distribution of the bending moment and the structural deflection.
Let us compare a generic Vierendeel typology (Fig. 12) with a truss of

comparable features (Fig. 13).

Figure 12: Example of a Vierendeel truss with punctual load distribution.
Figure 13: Example of a Pratt truss with punctual load distribution.
In the case of Bending Moments, the Vierendeel typology provides

significantly superior values (Fig. 14) as compared to those obtained by the
Pratt typology (Fig. 15). This fact has notable effects in the proposed pre-
dimensioning or dimensioning solution. Merely as a side note, it should be
noted that, if the previous structure had been solved using L50·5 angulars and
two-meter tracts, the Vierendeel typology would display the values shown on
the indicated figures.
Figure 14: Distribution of bending moments in a Vierendeel typology.
Figure 15: Distribution of bending moments in a Pratt typology.

On the other hand, the lack of diagonals also conditioned the structure’s
deformation. These, acting as propping elements, allowed the structure to
deform less, minimizing this phenomenon noticeably. Just like in the
aforementioned examples, the use of L50·5 angulars and two-meter beams
would imply a 3,287 mm drop in the average point in the case of the
Vierendeel typology, and a 21.3 mm drop for the Pratt truss (being these
obviously theoretical values, which aim at demonstrating the influence of the
diagonals).
Figure 16: Outline of the deformation in a Vierendeel typology applying the previous stress.
Maximum subsidence 3,287 mm.
Figure 17: Outline of the deformation in a Pratt typology applied the previous stress. Maximum
subsidence 21.3 mm.
Putting into practice the hinged joint hypothesis, with which we simplified the
problem, using a Pratt typology, we would obtain similar values to the
corresponding pin joints hypothesis in terms of deformation values with
corresponding null moments (obviously due to considering hinged joints).
These values are reflected in the following table (Table 1) where it can be
clearly seen how the Vierendeel truss responds worse to the action effects of
Bending Moments and deformation as compared to an analogous triangulated
truss.
Table 1: Comparative values for maximum bending moment and deformation of a Vierendeel
beam versus Pratt Truss with rigid and articulated joints.
Maximum moment Maximum deformation
(kNm) (mm)
Vierendeel truss 35.74 3,287
Pratt trellice (rigid joint) 0.08 21.3
Pratt trellice (articulated joint) 0 21.3
We deemed it of interest to comment on the very wide-ranging values which

appear on the previous chart.

A priori, the Pratt truss, having a lower deformation and being subjected to
lower stress, allows for the implementation of profiles with lower inertia than
the Vierendeel truss. As for the latter, the existence of considerably high
bending moments and shear strength values compels to use sturdier profiles.
In the case shown, since we were drawing on the same profile for both
typologies, the deformation is proved to be considerably higher in the case of
the Vierendeel truss, which would have to be predesigned using profiles of
higher inertia in order to obtain lower deformation values.
Consequently: keeping the same profile (case shown in Table 1), the
deformation of the Vierendeel truss is much higher than that of the Pratt lattice
beam. Should one wish to obtain more appropriate deformation values, we
would have to penalize the Vierendeel’s inertia.
ITS APPLICATION IN ARCHITECTURE AND

ENGINEERING
The data extracted from hyperstatic calculations (simplified with the Cross
method) as well as a survey of its forces and deformations, seem to indicate
that Vierendeel structures are not perceived in such favorable light as other
comparable existing models. But the reality is that the Vierendeel typology has
been actually widely used in architecture (as well as in civil engineering), and
it still is.
Figure 18: Outline and appearance of a Vierendeel truss.
Figure 19: Outline and appearance of a Vierendeel truss.

Figure 20: Vierendeel bridge on the Albert canal, Lanaye.
Figure 21: Vierendeel truss. International Agricultural Corporation plant in Chicago.
More recent examples could be mentioned: Louis Kahn’s Salk Institute, a work
of the architect Louis Kahn (1901–1974), as well as Norman Foster’s (1935)
Commerzbank, among other relevant buildings.
Therefore, it would seem logical at least to raise the following question: being
the Vierendeel truss a structural element, which is often brought into question,
how is it possible that it has not yet been superseded with a better model?
Why was, and still is, its inclusion so widespread in works of architecture and
civil engineering?
The answer is not to be found exclusively in its calculation method but in its
design. The Vierendeel truss allows the architect (the engineer) to design
large, open spaces with great spans, which would be hindered by the
presence of diagonals or crosses. That is the reason its use has been so
relevant in works of architecture as well as in civil engineering.

Figure 22: Disposition of components in a Vierendeel truss versus a Pratt beam.
The previous illustrative example (Figure 22) attempts to prove how, placing
rectangular and elliptical elements (generic features of any typology) becomes
impossible in most types of truss because diagonals literally will not allow
room for them. Removing the diagonals is required in order to place the former
properly. This typology, which disposes with diagonal lines, takes us back to
the shape conceived by Mr. Jules Arthur Vierendeel.
As an illustrative example of the application of the Vierendeel truss in the

architectural world here is shown the Pabellón-Puente project (2014), located
in the Calamuchita Valley (Córdoba, Argentina), a work by architects Joaquín
Alarcia (1982) and Federico Ferrer Deheza (1981), who have been kind
enough to allow us to publish the mentioned material.
Figure 23: Appearance of the Pabellón-Puente, 2014. (Source: Ferrer & Alarcia, 2014)
Spanning 85 m2, the Pavilion is located in a eucalyptus forest by the Los

Molinos lake, and it is adjacent at right angles to a canal of the old road
crossing the Calamuchita Valley. With that purpose, a suspended pavilion in
the shape of a bridge is perched transversely on the canal, resting on both
banks on top of two concrete walls which define this architectural intervention
and its scale.

Figure 24: Axonometric view of the Pabellón. (Source: Ferrer & Alarcia, 2014)
Its location in this particular environment prioritizes the notion of visual

pleasure, which would have been seriously hindered had diagonal structures
been included on the windows. Self-evidently, a different structural solution
could have been found using a classical truss frame, but that would have
made difficult one of the architect bureau’s objectives, that of the distribution
of space used for sightseeing reduced to a minimum number of elements,
including structural elements.
Figure 25: Comparative structures. With diagonals (Pratt), without them (Vierendeel). Pabellón.
(Source: Ferrer & Alarcia, 2014)
Thus, the structural problem was solved by the architect’s bureau using a
(metal) Vierendeel truss acting like the whole of the volume, as well as using
supports on both banks of the canal.

Figure 26: Assembly of a Vierendeel truss. Pabellón. (Source: Ferrer & Alarcia, 2014)
This constructive outline allows for a definitive solution — diaphanous and free
of bothersome visual obstructions, allowing us to appreciate the unique

beauty of the landscape.
Figure 27: Definitive solution. Pabellón. (Source: Ferrer & Alarcia, 2014)

AN INESCAPABLE REFERENCE: LELÉ (1932-

2014).
João da Gama Filgueiras, o “Lelé”, como é conhecido, além do
grande arquiteto que é, circulando como poucos entre a arte e a
técnica, é uma admirável figura humana. iv
A few additional words should suffice to introduce this great Brazilian architect
(in the hypothetical case, an introduction is necessary at all). Our aim here is
not to offer a presentation of the man, or of the enormous body of work by
someone regarded as one of the great standard-bearers of the Modern
Movement.
However, in keeping with the general aim of this article, we will try to display
Filgueiras’ use of the structural typologies we have presented previously,
showcasing some of the works in which he incorporated them. It is worth
noting that, given the architect’s sheer number of works, we were only able to
choose a few of them. We would like to recommend interested readers to refer
to the existing literature on this subject.
With that premise, we could begin by one of his greatest works: Residência
para Ministro de Estado (1965) – The Residence for the State Minister. In this
case, the aim is to enhance the visibility of the environment around the
building as well as an attempt towards seamless environment-building
integration. The solution favored by the architect was the Vierendeel typology,
which, far from “blocking” the view, emphasizes it.
O emprego dessas vigas possibilitou a existência de grandes

vãos no 1º nível, proporcionando, assim, melhor integração
entre os ambientes de piscina, estar, jogos, etc. Por outro lado,
a construção adquiriu leveza e sobretudo o caráter de maior
dignidade que o programa exigiu. v
Figure 28: Residência para Ministro de Estado. (Source:Carvalho & Latorraca, 2000, p. 39)

Figure 29: Residência para Ministro de Estado. Detail Warren typology versus Vierendeel.
(Source:Carvalho & Latorraca, 2000, p. 39)
One more example of the Vierendeel typology featured in Lelé’s architectural

oeuvre would take us to the renowned Hospital Sarah Kubitschek Brasília –
Doenças do Aparelho Locomotor (Brasília, DF, 1980) – Sarah Kubitschek
Brasilia Hospital – Disease of the Locomotor system (Brasilia, DF, 1980). We
detail the application of this structural typology in the image below.
Figure 30: Hospital Sarah Kubitschek Brasília – Doenças do Aparelho locomotor. Use of the
Vierendeel typology. (Source:Carvalho & Latorraca, 2000, p. 128-129)
As part of the variety of structures that the architect Filgueiras Lima has made
use of, and taking into consideration the specific character of the work, we
have wanted to include solutions which also implement other truss typologies.
Among other things, we will highlight different typologies:
Largo dos Aflitos (Largo Aflitos), Salvador, BA, 1988. (Figure 31).

Figure 31: Largo dos Aflitos. (Source:Carvalho & Latorraca, 2000, p. 176)
The Sede do Tribunal de Contas da União no Estado da Bahia (Headquarters

of the Federal Court of Accounts in the State of Bahia), Salvador, BA, 1995.
(Figure 32).
Figure 32: Sede do Tribunal de Contas da União no Estado da Bahia. (Source:Carvalho &
Latorraca, 2000, p. 218)
And the Centro de pesquisas agropecuárias do Cerrado (Cerrado Farming

Research Center), Brasília, DF, 1978) (Figure 33).
Conclusions
Jules Arthur Vierendeel introduced a new structural typology characterized by

being a framed truss, featuring high degrees of hyperstaticity, as well as
upright members which are very firmly pinned to the chords. From its
introduction by the Belgian engineer, the lack of diagonals caused a certain
mistrust in the typology, which only slowly came to be overcome, becoming in
the process a structural typology to be found nowadays in any treatise of this
field.

Structurally, this truss typology requires much more complex calculations due
to the rigid conditions created by the existence of bending, shear, and axial
forces.
But the said negative attributes can’t overshadow its aesthetic and physical
benefits. The absence of diagonals allows for more space, increases the
feeling of transparency and, furthermore, it makes it for people or other
elements to pass through it, as opposed to other classical typologies, which
make this practically impossible.
Figure 33: Centro de pesquisas agropecuárias do Cerrado. (Source:Carvalho & Latorraca,

2000, p. 95).
REFERENCES
BENDIXEN, A. 1914. Die Methode der Alpha-Gleichungen zur Berechnung von
Rahmenkonstruktionen. Berlín, 86 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-26154-5
CASTIGLIANO, A. 1879. Théorie de l'équilibre des systèmes élastiques et ses
applications. Turín, 480 p.
CLAPEYRON, B. P. E. 1857. Calcul d’une poutre élastique reposant librement sur
des appuis inégalement espacés. Comptes Rendus hebdomadaires des Séances de
l'Académie des Sciences, 45: 1076-1080.
CROSS, H. 1930. Analysis of Continuous Frames by Distributing Fixed-End
Moments. Proceeding of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 56: 919-28.
EATON, L. K. 2006. Hardy Cross American Engineer. Champaign, IL: University of
Illinois Press, 136 p.
CARVALHO, M., LATORRACA, G. 2000. João Filgueiras Lima Lelé: Arquitetos
Brasileiros = Brazilian Architects. Lisboa, Portugal: Editorial Blau; São Paulo, SP,
Brasil: Instituto Lina Bo e P.M. Bardi, 263 p.

HEYMAN, J. 1998. Structural Analysis: A Historical approach. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 220 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511529580
MOHR, O. C. 1874. Beitrag zur Theorie der Bogenfachwerkstränger. Zeitschrift des
architekten und Ingenieur-Vereins zu Hannover, 20: 223.
VIERENDEEL, A. 1920. Cours de stabilité des constructions. Louvain: A. Uystpruyst,
191 p.
WILSON, MANEY. 1915. Bulletin 80 Univers. Illinois. Eng. Exp. Station.
FERRER, F. ALARCIA, J. 2014. Alarcia Ferrer Arquitectos: Pabellón-Puente.
Disponível em: http://www.alarciaferrer.com.ar/index.php. Acesso em: 25/02/2019.
NOTES
iThe Pratt truss owes its name to engineer Thomas W. Pratt (1812–1875) and his
father Caleb Pratt.
ii The Howe truss owes its name to architect William Howe (1803–1852).
iii The Warren truss owes its name to engineer James Warren (1806–1908).
ivJoao da Gama Filgueiras, or “Lelé” as he is best known, on top of being the great
architect he is, encompassing art and technology as few can, is an admirable person
(Marcelo Carvalho Ferraz).
vThe use of these beams made the existence of large spans of the first level
possible, thereby providing a better integration between the pool, living, and game
environments, etc. Also, the construction gained lightness and above all a character
of greater dignity required by the program.
Submetido: 02/03/2018
Aceito: 25/06/2018

The Vierendeel Truss Past and Present of An Innovative Typology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Vierendeel Truss Past and Present of An Innovative Typology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

v.15 n.

THE VIERENDEEL TRUSS: PAST AND PRESENT OF AN

A VIGA VIERENDEEL: PASSADO E PRESENTE DE UMA

Josep Maria Pons-Poblet 1

Keywords: Vierendeel, Pratt, statistically indeterminate structures.

Palavras-chave: Vierendeel, Pratt, estruturas estatiscamente indeterminadas.

THE VIERENDEEL TRUSS

Figure 1: Outline of the Vierendeel type.

Figure 2: Outline of the Pratt typology.

Figure 3: Outline of the Warren and Howe typologies.

ArquiteturaRevista, v.15, n.1, jan/jun, 2019 194

A SIDE NOTE: ISOSTATIC STRUCTURE VERSUS

Figure 4: Outline of an isostatic beam with tree unknowns.

Applying the Rouché-Frobenius (Rouché-Capelli) theorem, we consequently

� 𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥 = 0, � 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 = 0, � 𝑀𝑀𝑧𝑧 = 0

Figure 5: Outline of a beam with four unknowns

The expert (whether an architect or an engineer) would have to face a difficult

ArquiteturaRevista, v.15, n.1, jan/jun, 2019 195

An initial examination of the Vierendeel truss allows us to note it is externally

Figure 6: Example of a Vierendeel beam with loads.

Figure 7: System of resolutive equations of the previous isostatic system.

As stated previously, a study of the Vierendeel type using the aforementioned

ArquiteturaRevista, v.15, n.1, jan/jun, 2019 196

Figure 8: Vierendeel truss. Madrid. (Source:

The Frenchman, by means of his Theorem of the three moments, introduced

A closer examination of the Vierendeel truss reveals how it possesses a

Theory of Structures required, once again, to obtain more agile formulations

ArquiteturaRevista, v.15, n.1, jan/jun, 2019 197

distributing fixed-end moments was a major milestone in the calculation of

Figure 9: American Society of Civil Engineers. (Source: Proceedings of the American

The purpose of this paper is to explain briefly a method which

The reactions in beams, bents, and arches which are immovably

VIERENDEEL TRUSS CALCULATION

ArquiteturaRevista, v.15, n.1, jan/jun, 2019 198

instance) considering them as a hinge joint, which proves, consequently, that

Figure 10: Solution of a Pratt truss.

Figure 11: Efforts considered in a generic section of a Vierendeel truss.

TWO NEW PROBLEMS... THE BENDING MOMENT

Let us compare a generic Vierendeel typology (Fig. 12) with a truss of

ArquiteturaRevista, v.15, n.1, jan/jun, 2019 199

Figure 12: Example of a Vierendeel truss with punctual load distribution.

Figure 13: Example of a Pratt truss with punctual load distribution.

In the case of Bending Moments, the Vierendeel typology provides

Figure 14: Distribution of bending moments in a Vierendeel typology.

Figure 15: Distribution of bending moments in a Pratt typology.

ArquiteturaRevista, v.15, n.1, jan/jun, 2019 200

Pratt trellice (rigid joint) 0.08 21.3

Pratt trellice (articulated joint) 0 21.3

We deemed it of interest to comment on the very wide-ranging values which

ArquiteturaRevista, v.15, n.1, jan/jun, 2019 201

ITS APPLICATION IN ARCHITECTURE AND

Figure 18: Outline and appearance of a Vierendeel truss.

Figure 19: Outline and appearance of a Vierendeel truss.

ArquiteturaRevista, v.15, n.1, jan/jun, 2019 202

Figure 20: Vierendeel bridge on the Albert canal, Lanaye.

Figure 21: Vierendeel truss. International Agricultural Corporation plant in Chicago.

ArquiteturaRevista, v.15, n.1, jan/jun, 2019 203

Figure 22: Disposition of components in a Vierendeel truss versus a Pratt beam.

As an illustrative example of the application of the Vierendeel truss in the

Spanning 85 m2, the Pavilion is located in a eucalyptus forest by the Los

ArquiteturaRevista, v.15, n.1, jan/jun, 2019 204

Its location in this particular environment prioritizes the notion of visual

ArquiteturaRevista, v.15, n.1, jan/jun, 2019 205